fuzzynormal

Andrew has argued this before.  You can't separate the technical from the artistic.

 

No, not in DIY film making, that's for sure.  But I've mired myself in the tech for decades.  I do enjoy it and don't find it daunting.  

 

It's just that, for me, digital imaging has finally gotten to the point where it's so technically democratized that I feel I absolutely have to focus on the more important aspects of the craft.  I've too often ignored the art to play with the newest buttons and switches.  I'm now feeling that such propensity is not going to serve me well in a DIY film making career moving forward.  

 

Those switches and buttons are not as expensive and exclusive as they used to be.  Anyone can afford them.  I just saw a 5DII for sale on craigslist for $350.  Put that camera and a cheap 50mm prime lens in the hands of a talented artistic kid and there's no limit to what she/he could do.  And the gear is so good, even if it's not "the best", it will support and even improve their creativity...as you allude to.

 

Sorry. I'm hijacking the thread.  I know gear talk is the prevue of this forum and sensor stuff is the main part of it.  Have at it and I'll shut up.  

Oh this stuff makes my head swim

 

That's why I don't really care all that much.  I'm the type that would just rather use the dang things to make something interesting and call it good.

 

I mean, it's curious and cool to know the tech, but hardly a priority for making something artistic.

 

Good for you if you want to delve in though.  Lord knows I'm not inclined to be an engineer.

But the key thing is giving it enough processing power, faster SD card slot, cooler readout circuitry and avoiding other heat issues

 

Still would love a hack that gave me some short term 4K bursts at whatever data rate was viable.

 

Sure, it may never happen, but the thought is nice.

So why can't we have a 24-70 F/1.8 in say, 5 years?

 

Because it's the maths.  And the numbers say, "nope, not practical."

 

As I say, the ability of a sensor to read the photons will be what matters.  And what's wrong with that exactly anyway?

I'm looking at getting a used canon FD 50mm or 55mm F1.2 around $250 as a more affordable option to a voitlanger or SLR magic 0.95. But I never see anyone mention these lenses, are there any issues to be aware of as to why it might not be a good option? Has anyone ever shot with these lenses? Thanks

 

I work with a colleague that likes using them on his FS100.  We did a local TV spot and the shots looked good to me.  If you like how they perform, go for it.  Video examples are easy to come by online, but try them yourself.  If you can't test before buying, you'll always be able to resell 'em anyway.  As for a 1.2 or .95, I try not to run my lenses that wide open regardless, unless that's a specific look I'm trying to accomplish or if it's doc production in an extremely low light setting.

 

Neither of those things tend to happen too often to me so I don't fret too much about the super fast lenses.

 

My goto prime is a 24mm Nikkor 2.8.  

 

I've also heard testimony that the Fujinon C mount lenses are impressive/cheap.  Since they make 'em for different sized sensors you just have to make sure you buy ones that cover m43; plenty of forums/advice out there for help if you want to look into it.

Can you imagine? People raved about this!

 

 

Sure, there's some good lensing in that video and I like the editing choices.  Yeah, I see a handful of common DLSR shooting mistakes that could be avoided and thus "fixed; some of the frame rates are too high for my tastes and the coloring is too uncontrolled, for example, but otherwise is still looks solid to my eye.

 

Put it this way, I'd guarantee you that I could put an Alexa in the hands of some people (maybe on this forum), send them out into this environment, and they wouldn't make anything half as compelling or cohesive.

 

And, even though it's already an anachronism, I still enjoy the image, flaws and all, from the sensor of my 5DII.  It's like loving a filmstock that's not as good as others, but suits your sensibilities, youknow?

Ahh... wait a minute... I get it.... Just like with motorcycles and other toys people obsess over. There are those who're are really into specs, tread patterns, new kinds of braking systems, synthetic vs non-synthetic oils, reading all the data, comparing speed tests, etc. And there are those who are really just interested in riding. Those two conversations obviously have crossover, but really aren't the same thing.

Dang right. And I need to get out in the desert and ride the twisties some more... On my motorcycle designed in 1962...

The dash cameeras in the Russian cars are there for legal reasons, not because of the traffic is particularly crazy.

As you say, It's the common media issue of: public awareness=problem.

Just because you suddenly begin to notice something doesn't mean it's suddenly more likely or important.

That's just how the human brain works.

Ever learn a new big word in your vocabulary? Thought yourself, "that new word sure is neat," and then began to hear it and used often seemingly at random?

That's not the big word asserting itself into the world, that's you paying attention to it.

Anyway, if everyone had a gopro on their dash here in CA, you'd see just as much ridiculous nonsense on the roads, if not more. Americans are allowed to drive without much financial or legal effort and that evidences itself on the streets with bad drivers.

Go check out what the motorcyclist deal with. Some of them have been wearing helmet cams for a few years now... The YouTube vids have followed.

(And now that I've put motorcycle-helmet-cams in your brain, you'll start to notice THAT a lot more too.)

I wouldn't rely on that really, technology can't change physics.

I wouldn't expect lenses to change much because, as you say, physics.

However, a sensors ability to read the photons landing on it, that's just going to get better and better.

High ISO with great color, no grain, @8k, and above? I could see that happening.

In the meantime, let's hope Olympus does indeed decide to throw the motion picture user market a bone with some informed choices on that firmware.

Good for you, and good luck. That's all besides the point, though. 

 

Okay, but so are most of the responses to this thread.  I'll defend myself by saying that the OP asked why some cameras are more "film" like than others, and stable lensing is a traditional aspect of cinema industry shooting...so...

It's a combination of an unsmooth pan and judder from panning too fast

 

I don't know.  The stutters to my eye look too random for that.

 it's my computer and not the video itself.

 

Don't use ML for a round of tests.  Go back to the OEM firmware.

 

Shoot 24p and then 60p or 60i.  Watch what happens during playback of those files directly from the CF card.  BTW, your shutter speed on the camera is irrelevant to the issue.

 

Overloading the data rate with a firmware hack can cause dropped frames.  I did this on occasion with my old GH1.  A good SD card could handle the higher data rate, but using slower cards would create issues.

Hi.  I'm gazing at my navel and see a bunch of lint in there.  What should I do?  Buy a Nikon or wait for the Panny 4K to get released?

If you wish to achieve really "cinematic" look, you don't leave your shots on the mercy of any in-camera stabilisation.

 

Well, for what it's worth, when I shoot one of my next documentaries it'll be with an Oly OM-D and I'll rely heavily on the 5-axis stabilization.  In fact, I've decided to use that camera pretty much because of the stabilization feature.  I will be, as you say, at the "mercy" of the stabilization.  However, I'd frame it as a "reward" not a "mercy."

 

I'm perfectly confident, under the conditions I'll be in, that I'll achieve superior cinematic footage with that gear than I would with most all else.

You should beg, borrow or steal Dario Argento's Dracula 3D.  Whatever you do don't pay money though.

 

There's a bit of the argument in this example that parallels the whole LOTR's frame rate controversy.  Insomuch that as you fail to stick to the traditional technical tropes of film look, you're going to be making stuff that messes with expectations.

 

With LOTR, it was a different frame rate that upsets that expectation, with this 3D movie it's really bad lighting compounded with bad grading/colorization.

 

With the 3D flick, I might even be generous and guess that maybe the director wanted the campiness of a video look as it fit the goofy narrative?  Cheap-looking on purpose, perhaps?  Who knows.  Did the director ever clarify?  Maybe he just got lucky with great cinematographers on earlier films and screwed on this one?

I was surprised how film like much of it looked.

 

>

Other than the flairs the video looks very videoish... maybe it's the taking lens that's causing it to look so bad, but based on this video, I wouldn't buy this lens. 

 

Interesting take on what a "video" look is, I think.  Maybe the context of the content is altering your conceptions?  Doc style footage does skew to a similar "video" camera use aesthetic.   

A response to "why do some cameras create more of a film look" is simply:  Perhaps those cameras are in the hands of people that know how to effectively use them.  It's not just the camera that creates the craft.

 

The gear is easy to get now a days.  What are you going to do with it is now the bigger question.

For what it's worth, a 24mm 2.8 on a M43 sensor comes extremely close to matching a cinematographer's sweet spot settings.

 

35mm film shooting is a smaller imaging area than a full frame sensor, so this does't match up perfectly, but M43 basically has a 2x FF factor.  So, 24mm becomes 48mm and 2.8 becomes 5.6.  And that's where you want to be a good bit of the time.  Maybe slightly longer lens for talky scenes, but otherwise it's a good place to play for a ton of conventional shooting.

That's not a pan.  It's a bad slider shot and the unbalanced friction of the slider is physically staggering the camera; making the whole camera body actually shake.

Mmmmmm, that's some juicy vertigo.    And I used to think I was ballsy climbing my local grain silo.

I do a lot of documentary stuff wherein I don't control room lighting.

 

Manual exposure, no exceptions there.  I almost always expose for my subject, a few exceptions here.  I "eyeball" the exposure on the LCD.  If it looks good I roll with it, lots of exceptions here.

 

Of course, you have to understand what "looks good" and why, but that's the shortest/simplest answer I can give.  Wisdom eventually will help dial you in to get shots that aren't over or underexposed. 

I think these gimbals still take a lot of practice and skill to get steady shots, and I'm afraid I'll be sorely disappointed.

 

 

In my experience, 3-axis gimbals work fine enough straight away once it's all balanced and dialed in.  You can get better with 'em as you go, but they're easily useable even for a neophyte.

I think this is now recognisable to most people as the HDSLR look :)

 

Yup, no doubt.  But at the same time it certainly doesn't look "video."  I'm not saying it's what you should do without a knowledgable consideration, it's just a quick recipe for hitting those flavors that describe "cinema" (in the context of what it used to be before digital)

At 3200ISO setting with color profile portrait and all settings set at the -5, the result is stunning.

 

I do think it's stunning to get such a great picture out of such a small camera, but you're going to get some weird mud by going -5 on the parameters.  I know I do.